Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious caveats: success does not confirm rendering, returns draft data without UI support, and editing is revision-checked and never approves launch. These are exactly the surprises an agent needs to know, though the interaction between 'editing' and readOnlyHint could be spelled out more.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the key caveats, with no filler. The telegraphic style ('without UI support', 'revision-checked') is dense but each sentence carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description still covers the important behavioral caveats for what is essentially a read of a draft. The main gap is that it never explains the testId input or when to prefer this over preview/launch siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions testId, its ID format, or what draft it addresses. The pattern in the schema is discoverable, but the description adds no meaning beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action (open a draft review card) and names the sibling used for subsequent reads (get_test_definition), which helps separate it from get_test, get_test_definition, and get_test_progress. The phrase 'optional draft review card' is somewhat jargon-y about what a 'card' is, but the verb+resource intent is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives one routing rule — 'Use get_test_definition for later reads' — but does not say when to open a review card at all, nor how it relates to preview_test_launch, edit_draft_advanced, or launch_test. Usage is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.